PDA

View Full Version : THE REASON WHY Nadal SOMETIMES GETS A BAD RAP ... THO HE'S WON FRENCH, WIMBY, AUST,??


TheOneAndOnly
02-20-2009, 03:42 PM
I've been thinking.

the reason why Nadal is not dubbed or marked yet as a serious #1 player in the minds of many is because of his style of game.

As he sits on the #1 throne a little bit longer, it may sink in the naysayers minds.

But his style of game is so Muster-esque (tomas muster), where he tries so hard and seems to grunt for every point, that there hasn't been a smooth sort of easy going playing where he can tell the crowd that he is head and shoulders above the rest.

no?

Zaragoza
02-20-2009, 03:51 PM
Those who don't see Nadal as a serious or true no.1 don't know too much about tennis. There are different styles that can make someone the no.1 in the world and it has always been like this, some narrow minded people just think that you have to play a certain style to be a true no.1 or an all-time great contender.
In order to become the no.1 you have to be exceptional at something and very good in every aspect of the game and Nadal is.
Nadal has won 3 of the last 4 majors and he has been very consistent in the other tournaments. You can't do much better than that.

Okazaki Fragment
02-20-2009, 03:53 PM
I've been thinking.

the reason why Nadal is not dubbed or marked yet as a serious #1 player in the minds of many is because of his style of game.

As he sits on the #1 throne a little bit longer, it may sink in the naysayers minds.

But his style of game is so Muster-esque (tomas muster), where he tries so hard and seems to grunt for every point, that there hasn't been a smooth sort of easy going playing where he can tell the crowd that he is head and shoulders above the rest.

no?

He's achieved much more than Muster. Nadal is more like Lendl. Nobody liked Lendl either.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
02-20-2009, 03:53 PM
People are still clinging onto the sinking ship known as Roger Federer.

oneguy21
02-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Oh c'mon...there are probably 20 other threads on this subject.

The fact is Nadal is number 1 right now; if he's not he'll eventually lose it. It's as simple as that.

GameSampras
02-20-2009, 03:57 PM
I've been thinking.

the reason why Nadal is not dubbed or marked yet as a serious #1 player in the minds of many is because of his style of game.

As he sits on the #1 throne a little bit longer, it may sink in the naysayers minds.

But his style of game is so Muster-esque (tomas muster), where he tries so hard and seems to grunt for every point, that there hasn't been a smooth sort of easy going playing where he can tell the crowd that he is head and shoulders above the rest.

no?


Nadal is the legit best player in the world right now. You cant argue against that. Hes won the 3 of the last 4 slams. I think as the next few years unravel he will have a more difficult time keeping that number 1 spot and winning the slams as Roger did 04-07. It came so easy to Roger. While Nadal has to work for what he has. Fed could almost half-arse at alot of the slams he played. He won a few slams there where you werent getting the best out of Fed. There wasnt a player like Nadal who could push him to the limit. Hewitt and Roddick. But neither were the calibor of Nadal. People will say Roger's best days are behind him. But if he had to deal with a 22 year old Nadal who has primed back in 04-06 the results would have been the same as they are now with Nadal taking most of the matches from clay to HC to grass and Fed may only be sitting half the slams he has now. MAYBE LESS

DoubleDeuce
02-20-2009, 04:05 PM
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines. Other than that anyone can choose their own number one.

Number one does not mean absolute better. In this regard, I am going to agree with Toni when he recently said Federer is a better player. Sure he knows what he's talking about.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.

Nadal_Freak
02-20-2009, 04:10 PM
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines. Other than that anyone can choose their own number one.

Number one does not mean absolute better. In this regard, I am going to agree with Toni when he recently said Federer is a better player. Sure he knows what he's talking about.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.
Yeah but who won Wimbledon and the Australian Open? Lol You can have imaginary friends as well. Whatever makes you feel better.

DoubleDeuce
02-20-2009, 04:13 PM
Yeah but who won Wimbledon and the Australian Open? Lol You can have imaginary friends as well. Whatever makes you feel better.

See? For you it's only who wins what. That's apparently the deciding factor for you.
Like I said above, to each his own.

pound cat
02-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Originally Posted by DoubleDeuce
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines. Other than that anyone can choose their own number one.

Number one does not mean absolute better. In this regard, I am going to agree with Toni when he recently said Federer is a better player. Sure he knows what he's talking about.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.

I have no idea where NadalFreak found this post as it is not on this thread.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.


double deuce, you have finally articulated the basis of the Nadal /Federer message board rivalry. It is not based on logic, but it is simply based on subjective feeling for one or the other player.
Like religion, you have no hope of convincing the other side.

Given that, some like Federer, some like Nadal. It's all in the mind, and neither side can be convinced of the other's point of view.

SO..forget all this Federer.Nadal stuff. You like tomatoes, I like tomahtoes. Period...never to be resolved....NEVER NEVER NEVER .


Personally, I have never given up on Safin, and no one can convince me otherwise. It's all in my mind. like Federer or Nadal is to others.


Cheers............

edmondsm
02-20-2009, 04:34 PM
Who doesn't think Nadal is a serious #1? I would call this thread trolling but I don't know who the OP is trying to **** off.

The-Champ
02-20-2009, 04:46 PM
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines. Other than that anyone can choose their own number one.

Number one does not mean absolute better. In this regard, I am going to agree with Toni when he recently said Federer is a better player. Sure he knows what he's talking about.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.


what did he do to you?

tahiti
02-21-2009, 12:32 AM
what did he do to you?

I think the reason is there. Federer came along, toppled Sampras and became unbeatable. It sticks. Like a swarm of bees people follow the new Queen Bee, though I should be saying "King Bee" :twisted:

The next "to be King Bee", completely opposite to the current in reign, comes along and threatens to throw the whole show overboard. The media assist, explaining a victory or loss as the beginning or end of the world. People don't like change!

As quoted "whoever is our no. 1" remains your no.1 True. Even when Nadal slips to no. 10, he'll still be my no. 1 . We are like bees to honey. Anything other than our familiar "King Bee" is considered a wasp. Dangerous, different and WRONG!

tahiti
02-21-2009, 12:48 AM
Oops though must mention Pound Cat to say

Quote: Originally Posted by DoubleDeuce
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines.

Is like saying Federer & Sampras was only defined as No. 1 by ATP guideline. Bit strange isn't it? When there are no other definitions or guidelines in place?

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:34 AM
Nadal is the best in the world at the moment and anyone who believes otherwise is clearly in denial. That said, you can argue that his style is not pretty to watch (personally, I think it's a borefest), but he is the most effective, consistent and tough mentally player on tour right now, and therefore the best. I do think Federer ans some other players are more talented than Nadal as far as shotmaking abilities goes, but obviously that's not enough. The only person at the moment who seems like he has the ability to beat Nadal and take his place is Andy Murray. He has the tennis skills, the movement, and is starting to develop a real mental toughness against the top players. However, Murray still has to prove himself in the slams and on other surfaces like clay and grass, as Nadal did time and time again.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:38 AM
Nadal is the legit best player in the world right now. You cant argue against that. Hes won the 3 of the last 4 slams. I think as the next few years unravel he will have a more difficult time keeping that number 1 spot and winning the slams as Roger did 04-07. It came so easy to Roger. While Nadal has to work for what he has. Fed could almost half-arse at alot of the slams he played. He won a few slams there where you werent getting the best out of Fed. There wasnt a player like Nadal who could push him to the limit. Hewitt and Roddick. But neither were the calibor of Nadal. People will say Roger's best days are behind him. But if he had to deal with a 22 year old Nadal who has primed back in 04-06 the results would have been the same as they are now with Nadal taking most of the matches from clay to HC to grass and Fed may only be sitting half the slams he has now. MAYBE LESS

No.

10 chars.

Sentinel
02-21-2009, 02:39 AM
I've been thinking.

no?
That can be a dangerous thing. Please drop the habit at once.

:)

Pinkskunk
02-21-2009, 02:54 AM
For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.

And what did he do for you? :shock:

Federer IS a former World #1, as is Samprass and those before him....... Today, Nadal is World #1. The ATP ranking is there for a reason. You don't rank/make someone #1 because you have feeling for him/her. you rank someone #1 for the total of points that he/she accumulated and remain ahead, and in today's game, it's NOT easy.

pound cat
02-21-2009, 02:56 AM
Oh c'mon...there are probably 20 other threads on this subject.

The fact is Nadal is number 1 right now; if he's not he'll eventually lose it. It's as simple as that.


And they have no real appreciation for the game of tennis and all those who successfully play it.

Pinkskunk
02-21-2009, 03:05 AM
That said, you can argue that his style is not pretty to watch (personally, I think it's a borefest................

i guess those people who packed the stadium on his matches in recent ATP tournaments are crazy to pay to participate in borefest?

let me tell you, there is nothig i enjoy watching more when Nadal and Federer go head-to-head. and so is almost all real tennis fans. it is a treat in our generation of tennis fans to have these two. I am affraid to say the best of it is starting to fade as one of them is weakening. I hope he raise again so we can have some unbelieble tennis to watch.

let's face it, Federer's tennis is an art, Nadal's tennis is a bull fight. each has their own uniqueness. in the end, the one with the most points earns the trophy.

caulcano
02-21-2009, 03:10 AM
I've been thinking.
the reason why Nadal is not dubbed or marked yet as a serious #1 player in the minds of many is because of his style of game.


People just need to look at the rankings for who's #1.

raiden031
02-21-2009, 03:16 AM
I don't think his #1'ness is questioned, but what is questioned is whether he is a contender for GOAT. Against the rest of the field, I'd say both Fed and Nadal deserve #1 right now because both are still very dominant. Its just that Nadal has the matchup advantage against Fed now which puts him in the leading spot (ie. Nadal beat Fed in the finals of 5 of his 6 slam wins, including the last 3 in a row that Nadal has won to put him at #1). I can accept that Nadal is the true #1 at the present.

zagor
02-21-2009, 03:26 AM
Nadal is the legit best player in the world right now. You cant argue against that. Hes won the 3 of the last 4 slams. I think as the next few years unravel he will have a more difficult time keeping that number 1 spot and winning the slams as Roger did 04-07. It came so easy to Roger. While Nadal has to work for what he has. Fed could almost half-arse at alot of the slams he played. He won a few slams there where you werent getting the best out of Fed. There wasnt a player like Nadal who could push him to the limit. Hewitt and Roddick. But neither were the calibor of Nadal. People will say Roger's best days are behind him. But if he had to deal with a 22 year old Nadal who has primed back in 04-06 the results would have been the same as they are now with Nadal taking most of the matches from clay to HC to grass and Fed may only be sitting half the slams he has now. MAYBE LESS

The bolded part is usual stuff from you which is off the thread topic,this thread is not about discrediting Fed's achievements to make Sampras look better,there are plenty of those around.The OP point was about tennis elitists and purists having a hard time accepting that somoene who is in their eyes still just a grinder and claycourter dominating tennis,this thread isn't about Fed sucks-Sampras is better which is what you turn every thread into with your remarks.Slam wins never come easy to anyone in tennis,you're disrespecting the players and the sport by saying such nonsense.Nadal had to work for what he has,and Fed didn't? You don't have a first clue about tennis or competitive sport in general.Proffesional sport is an environment where nothing comes easily.

We already established that according to Sampras fans here that Roger won all his slams due to pure luck and playing clowns like Hewitt(who had a winning record against almost any player of note from the latter part of the 90s),that he would have won zero slams if he was the same age as Nadal and that in 2008-2009 he's playing as great as he was in 2005 and 2006 it's just that Andreev,Tipsarevic and Berdych have all also improved so much that they're able to push Fed to the brink of losing in HC slams in early rounds,something that didn't happen even once during 2004-2007(Fed rarely lost sets before quarterfinals in HC slams in that period).The competition has improved so much that even though Fed is playing as great as he was in 2005-2006 he's losing not just sets but matches to Fish,Karlovic,Roddick,Blake,Ginepri and Stepanek,all up coming youngsters who Fed never faced before,we should also neglect the fact that aside from USO and Basel Fed didn't reach a SINGLE HARDCOURT FINAL during the whole year.Hardcourts,the surface Fed used to dominate.He was also down 5-1 to a great claycourter Hidalgo in the Monte Carlo masters,we should neglect that as well.

Hey but guess what,he reached a slam final,that means he must be in his absolute prime,no way a player of Fed's caliber can reach a slam final past his prime,that's impossible.I guess we should also conclude then that Sampras was in his prime in 2000-2002 period since he reached 3 USO finals in a row(never managed to do that during his prime years),in 2000 when he lost to Safin in the final Sampras lost only one set on the reute there(something that also he never accomplished in his prime).

Really they should just make a sticky Fed sucks and only won slams because he beat clowns so Sampras fanboys like yourself can bash him to infinity for daring to come close to breaking your idol's slam record,pathetic.

zagor
02-21-2009, 03:32 AM
I've been thinking.

the reason why Nadal is not dubbed or marked yet as a serious #1 player in the minds of many is because of his style of game.

As he sits on the #1 throne a little bit longer, it may sink in the naysayers minds.

But his style of game is so Muster-esque (tomas muster), where he tries so hard and seems to grunt for every point, that there hasn't been a smooth sort of easy going playing where he can tell the crowd that he is head and shoulders above the rest.

no?

I understand your point completely but people should get over the fact that Nadals is now a proven player on every surface and in no way can he be labeled as simply a claycourter anymore.Regardless of his playing style,Nadal holds 3 out 4 slams at the moment,he's a completely deserving number one.Nadal started as a claycourter(although he could still play great tennis at times on HC)but worked hard on his game and improved his serve,BH,even FH,overall improved became more agressive off ground and improved his offense adding to his already great defense(which still remains the main strength of his game).He's obviously the best player in the world right now and has proven to be an all-surface player,there's nothing more to be added about that topic.

Gorecki
02-21-2009, 06:45 AM
Those who don't see Nadal as a serious or true no.1 don't know too much about tennis. There are different styles that can make someone the no.1 in the world and it has always been like this, some narrow minded people just think that you have to play a certain style to be a true no.1 or an all-time great contender.
In order to become the no.1 you have to be exceptional at something and very good in every aspect of the game and Nadal is.
Nadal has won 3 of the last 4 majors and he has been very consistent in the other tournaments. You can't do much better than that.

the ever so classy Zarzuela calling out ignorant on a massive number of former pros and Tennis specialist...

certifiedjatt
02-21-2009, 07:39 AM
most people on here recycle the comments made by commentators. so, if a commentator says "federer glides on the court with undeniable elegance", the next day, you'll find 9 threads on Federer's elegance, and how he glides on the court. commentators have described federer as a "mathematical genius" because of how he uses the angles of the court ( i must be einstien squared, then). people have described him as a ballet dancer because his movement on court is supposedly so...um...ballet like.

nadal's game is described as brute force. jockish, no brain, not elegant, not artistic, etc. and i find that ridiculously disconcerting. i find nothing "artistic" or "genius" in federer's game.

people place so much emphasis on elegance (whatever the hell that means) and its necessity in being a number 1. if you aren't elegant, you aren't a real number 1. what a load of crap.

I'm a Sampras fan, so i don't really have a bias between nadal and federer. but, if federer's Monet, than nadal is Cezanne. If Federer's ballet, than Nadal is hip hop. If Federer's a mathematical genius ( rrrrright), Nadal is a mad scientist of the highest order. If federer's "i have my own logo and i wear a gold and white purse to wimbledon center court", nadal is "i kicked your *** in French, Wimbledon, and Australian Open, you pansy mofo."

Cyan
02-21-2009, 09:14 AM
Because Rafa does not play ballet tennis or look like Quentin Tarantino.

Sentinel
02-21-2009, 09:25 AM
but, if federer's Monet, than nadal is Cezanne. If Federer's ballet, than Nadal is hip hop. If Federer's a mathematical genius ( rrrrright), Nadal is a mad scientist of the highest order. If federer's "i have my own logo and i wear a gold and white purse to wimbledon center court", nadal is "i kicked your *** in French, Wimbledon, and Australian Open, you pansy mofo."
classic post.

i think its just jealousy / hurt that one's fav has been beaten.

Cyan
02-21-2009, 10:52 AM
If Rafa was ugly people wouldnt hate him so much.

tahiti
02-21-2009, 11:20 AM
Totally agree with the last post & the one about people sore having their own favourite beaten. Rafa is also just unconventional. Right handed but plays left, what's up with that. Weird or not and still so good.

I don't understand still why Rafa gets a bad rap. He and Fed seem to be good friends & his behaviour, empathy and respect towards Fed has always been exemplary.:)

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Totally agree with the last post & the one about people sore having their own favourite beaten. Rafa is also just unconventional. Right handed but plays left, what's up with that. Weird or not and still so good.

I don't understand still why Rafa gets a bad rap. He and Fed seem to be good friends & his behaviour, empathy and respect towards Fed has always been exemplary.:)
Look at my avatar and you'll know why Fed fans hate Nadal. :D

Serve_Ace
02-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Uh we don't hate Nadal, we hate it that Nadal fans take every single chance to rub it in our faces, like what you're doing with your avatar and sometime they'll create out of nothing a chance to insult Federer.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 11:55 AM
the ever so classy Zarzuela calling out ignorant on a massive number of former pros and Tennis specialist...
Whatever is wrong with you? Zaragoza's post IS very classy, your post is... embarrassing :(

tahiti
02-21-2009, 11:57 AM
Yeah :) And then the very guy who breaks his heart consoles him and tells him "don't worry, you're still gonna beat Sampras's record". Fed can't even dislike Rafie, he's just too kind.

This goat business is weird. Why a goat? Are we in a Chinese horoscope? If so then my vote is that 2008 was "The Year of the Bull"

edmondsm
02-21-2009, 11:57 AM
It's obvious that a person who likes Fed would not like Nadal, and vice versa. They are completely different styles and personalities. Why does it always have to be about some personal annomosity. You just don't like how one guy plays or conducts himself, it's not rocket science.

edmondsm
02-21-2009, 11:58 AM
Uh we don't hate Nadal, we hate it that Nadal fans take every single chance to rub it in our faces, like what you're doing with your avatar and sometime they'll create out of nothing a chance to insult Federer.

This is true. Many Nadal fans rarely exhibit the class that Nadal does. Case in point, Nadal_Freak.

abmk
02-21-2009, 12:02 PM
It's obvious that a person who likes Fed would not like Nadal, and vice versa. They are completely different styles and personalities. Why does it always have to be about some personal annomosity. You just don't like how one guy plays or conducts himself, it's not rocket science.

Not necessarily.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:03 PM
It's obvious that a person who likes Fed would not like Nadal, and vice versa. They are completely different styles and personalities. Why does it always have to be about some personal annomosity. You just don't like how one guy plays or conducts himself, it's not rocket science.

yeah,but then there are those few select people who like both nadal and fed. I guess it is possible to like one thing in one person and a different thing in another.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:12 PM
I don't think Nadal gets a bad rap anymore. Everyone is really excited to see how much more he can do, commentators and specialists are starting to mention a calendar slam and other wonderful prospects for him. He used to get a bad rap because people saw Federer as the absolute dominant figure and they didn't understand it could change, they didn't WANT it to change, people always go with the safest bet, the continuum because it's reassuring. I like that about Nadal, that he always seems to beat the odds; the more people doubt him, the better he's gonna do, he thrives on challenge. I also like the fact that things didn't always come easy to him, it's a test of endurance and it means that he will be better prepared for when the going gets extra tough.
On a more shallow note, Nadal is sexy and perceived as "hot" by a lot of women (not all but a lot) and when that happens there's always some kind of backlash from the male contingent. I remember young Agassi went through the same ordeal (his popularity with the female crowd was proportional to the irritation he triggered in a lot of male commentators).

tahiti
02-21-2009, 12:13 PM
On Nadal's forum, we love Fed as much as Nadal.
NAdal wouldn't be as great if it weren't for Fed. We recognise that and appreciate what both bring to the game.

True champions are great to watch when they win and lose

But I blame the media too. They took forever to recognise Rafa and it's natural then that others take time to follow suite. Rafans have had to live on faith for a while.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:13 PM
It's obvious that a person who likes Fed would not like Nadal, and vice versa. They are completely different styles and personalities. Why does it always have to be about some personal annomosity. You just don't like how one guy plays or conducts himself, it's not rocket science.
And yet there are some Fedal fans, they exist, you can't deny it!

rubberduckies
02-21-2009, 12:16 PM
Personal animosity (which always plays a big role when you're dealing with deluded frontrunner fans) aside, I think it boils down to two things:

Nadal grunts - people who chose to make a sound as they hit are obviously struggling a lot more and working a lot harder than non-grunters

Fed's 1hbh - players with this aesthetically pleasing stroke are obviously more talented that those who have to hit with two hands

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Look at my avatar and you'll know why Fed fans hate Nadal. :D
I must say your avatar is spectacular!

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:18 PM
On Nadal's forum, we love Fed as much as Nadal.
NAdal wouldn't be as great if it weren't for Fed. We recognise that and appreciate what both bring to the game.

True champions are great to watch when they win and lose

But I blame the media too. They took forever to recognise Rafa and it's natural then that others take time to follow suite. Rafans have had to live on faith for a while.

I've been on both the forums for their sites and its really great to see the nadal fans are a lot more appreciative of fed than the fed fans are of nadal on fed's site. Some are just plain nasty.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:20 PM
I must say your avatar is spectacular!

wow, I didn't know someone's tears and sadness could be spectacular. Good to know.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 12:22 PM
wow, I didn't know someone's tears and sadness could be spectacular. Good to know.
Boo hoo. Fed lost. It's not the end of the world though he made it seem that way. The man needs to learn to lose with grace. What an embarrassment he was at the trophy ceremony.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 12:22 PM
i guess those people who packed the stadium on his matches in recent ATP tournaments are crazy to pay to participate in borefest?

let me tell you, there is nothig i enjoy watching more when Nadal and Federer go head-to-head. and so is almost all real tennis fans. it is a treat in our generation of tennis fans to have these two. I am affraid to say the best of it is starting to fade as one of them is weakening. I hope he raise again so we can have some unbelieble tennis to watch.

let's face it, Federer's tennis is an art, Nadal's tennis is a bull fight. each has their own uniqueness. in the end, the one with the most points earns the trophy.

That's my opinion. I think Nadal's game is a borefest. Don't try to convince me otherwise - I'm entitled to my opinion.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:24 PM
Boo hoo. Fed lost. It's not the end of the world though he made it seem that way. The man needs to learn to lose with grace. What an embarrassment he was at the trophy ceremony.

most nadal fans have pictures of nadal winning, but I guess your an exception. Something tells me you enjoy fed losing more than you enjoy nadal winning.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:24 PM
most people on here recycle the comments made by commentators. so, if a commentator says "federer glides on the court with undeniable elegance", the next day, you'll find 9 threads on Federer's elegance, and how he glides on the court. commentators have described federer as a "mathematical genius" because of how he uses the angles of the court ( i must be einstien squared, then). people have described him as a ballet dancer because his movement on court is supposedly so...um...ballet like.

nadal's game is described as brute force. jockish, no brain, not elegant, not artistic, etc. and i find that ridiculously disconcerting. i find nothing "artistic" or "genius" in federer's game.

people place so much emphasis on elegance (whatever the hell that means) and its necessity in being a number 1. if you aren't elegant, you aren't a real number 1. what a load of crap.

I'm a Sampras fan, so i don't really have a bias between nadal and federer. but, if federer's Monet, than nadal is Cezanne. If Federer's ballet, than Nadal is hip hop. If Federer's a mathematical genius ( rrrrright), Nadal is a mad scientist of the highest order. If federer's "i have my own logo and i wear a gold and white purse to wimbledon center court", nadal is "i kicked your *** in French, Wimbledon, and Australian Open, you pansy mofo."
Very enjoyable post, well observed. I think it also shows the media's need for polar opposites, a colorful rivalry. Maybe Federer and Nadal are not that dissimilar in the end but it makes it more fun to polarize their styles: "Sissy and the beast" lol.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:26 PM
wow, I didn't know someone's tears and sadness could be spectacular. Good to know.
It's not so much the tears, it's the photo angle and the way Fed looks at the trophy. But I know it's mean, sorry...

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:26 PM
That's my opinion. I think Nadal's game is a borefest. Don't try to convince me otherwise - I'm entitled to my opinion.

I agree that nadal's game is boring. I think thats one of the reasons many fed fans dislike nadal because they feel is game is boring and rather repetitive interms of tactics, but there are quite a few people who find federer's game boring as well. I guess its all a matter of preference.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 12:27 PM
most nadal fans have pictures of nadal winning, but I guess your an exception. Something tells me you enjoy fed losing more than you enjoy nadal winning.
I look too much like a fanboy with Nadal all the time. I had my share of Nadal pictures before the Fed one. This one was too good to pass up though. Fed crying while looking at the trophy. :D

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:27 PM
It's not so much the tears, it's the photo angle and the way Fed looks at the trophy. But I know it's mean, sorry...

i get it coming from nadal_freak, I just didn't expect that comment from you. It doesn't matter to me that much anway.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 12:27 PM
most nadal fans have pictures of nadal winning, but I guess your an exception. Something tells me you enjoy fed losing more than you enjoy nadal winning.

Don't you know? Nadal's Freak is the most obssesed Federer hater. He hates Fed way more than he likes Nadal. In fact it seems he likes Nadal only because it gives him a reason to hate Fed.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:28 PM
I look too much like a fanboy with Nadal all the time. I had my share of Nadal pictures before the Fed one. This one was too good to pass up though. Fed crying while looking at the trophy. :D

something tells me you still look like a nadal fanboy for many people.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 12:29 PM
I agree that nadal's game is boring. I think thats one of the reasons many fed fans dislike nadal because they feel is game is boring and rather repetitive interms of tactics, but there are quite a few people who find federer's game boring as well. I guess its all a matter of preference.

Don't get me wrong - Nadal's a great guy, a true champion and is great for the sport. I think he totally deserves #1 in the world and his mental toughness continues to amaze me. However, I'm just bored with his style, it's not appealing to me. When a Nadal match is on TV and I don't really care of the other player, I just turn it off. I also think Nadal and Federer matches are quite boring these days. Always the same routine, the same pattern: Nadal kills Federer backhand, Federer finds a way to break, Federer chokes, Nadal wins.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:31 PM
Don't get me wrong - Nadal's a great guy, a true champion and is great for the sport. I think he totally deserves #1 in the world and his mental toughness continues to amaze me. However, I'm just bored with his style, it's not appealing to me. When a Nadal match is on TV and I don't really care of the other player, I just turn it off.

I agree. I do find his game boring, but one of the reasons I still find myself rooting for him most of the time, unless he is up against fed, is his heart, his will to fight, but on a tennis level, his game doesn't do anything for me. I don't want to start anything, but what is moonballing? So many people use it on mtf to describe nadal's style and I was just afraid to ask over there.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:37 PM
i get it coming from nadal_freak, I just didn't expect that comment from you. It doesn't matter to me that much anway.
I can see the humor in this picture but I understand why Federer fans wouldn't. Once again, sorry about that.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:40 PM
I agree. I do find his game boring, but one of the reasons I still find myself rooting for him most of the time, unless he is up against fed, is his heart, his will to fight, but on a tennis level, his game doesn't do anything for me. I don't want to start anything, but what is moonballing? So many people use it on mtf to describe nadal's style and I was just afraid to ask over there.
Hitting the ball soft and high to slow down a rally. I don't think Nadal does it that often really but it forces errors out of the opponent sometimes.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:42 PM
Hitting the ball soft and high to slow down a rally. I don't think Nadal does it that often really but it forces errors out of the opponent sometimes.

thanks just wondering. I do think nadal generally relies on errors from his opponent for the most part.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 12:45 PM
thanks just wondering. I do think nadal generally relies on errors from his opponent for the most part.
Yes he relies on forced errors for the most part. :D

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 12:46 PM
thanks just wondering. I do think nadal generally relies on errors from his opponent for the most part.

That's Nadal's game - a greatly effective defense game. Nadal doesn't go for winners most of the time, but rather build the point to a long rally he's dictating until his opponent makes a mistake.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 12:47 PM
something tells me you still look like a nadal fanboy for many people.
Maybe so but not one of the extreme ones. I see ton of obsessed fans on Rafa's site. I even got sick of hearing everything about Nadal. I prefer a more neutral site but I think this site still is slightly biased for Federer but not as bad as it once was.

tahiti
02-21-2009, 12:47 PM
Anyone who doesn't understand Fed's pain at the time is rather heartless I'm afraid, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate fans' enthusiasims though in an avatar . Man how many times has Fed won. Great that someone else has the chance!!!!!!

There is no match of Fed/Nadal that is boring and as for shots of Nadal. Well a couple are phenomenal but my favourite:

When he's running in the ad side tramlines to get a slammer and he curls it back in around the net for a winner. It looks physically impossible :) What I like the most about his game, are the rallies and the consistency. I see tennis, not faults and point over. I mean these guys should also work for their money. If I want to see art, I'll go to a museum.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 12:47 PM
That's Nadal's game - a greatly effective defense game. Nadal doesn't go for winners most of the time, but rather build the point to a long rally he's dictating until his opponent makes a mistake.

is that what agassi did as well? Sorry to get off topic, but I feel like I need to believe there are differences between agassi's game and nadal's game.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 12:50 PM
thanks just wondering. I do think nadal generally relies on errors from his opponent for the most part.
He does it sometimes on hard, not on grass IMO. Nadal is great at percentage tennis waiting for errors when it's appropriate, attacking at other times. He also changes game plans according to the opponent.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:00 PM
Anyone who doesn't understand Fed's pain at the time is rather heartless I'm afraid, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate fans' enthusiasims though in an avatar . Man how many times has Fed won. Great that someone else has the chance!!!!!!

There is no match of Fed/Nadal that is boring and as for shots of Nadal. Well a couple are phenomenal but my favourite:

When he's running in the ad side tramlines to get a slammer and he curls it back in around the net for a winner. It looks physically impossible :) What I like the most about his game, are the rallies and the consistency. I see tennis, not faults and point over. I mean these guys should also work for their money. If I want to see art, I'll go to a museum.


Well to me Federer's art is tennis, and his tennis is a work of art. To each his own, I respect your opinion, I can understand how people can like Nadal's long rallies. He does have his moments, like every other player, but mostly I find his game no appealing to me. Sorry.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:04 PM
is that what agassi did as well? Sorry to get off topic, but I feel like I need to believe there are differences between agassi's game and nadal's game.

I though Agassi's game was prettier than Nadal's. I also think Agaasi had more natural talent than Nadal. I really liked Agassi's return of serve but his game wasn't appealing to me very much. More than Nadal's sure, but not by much. I like the all-around guys - Federer, Gasquet, Murray, Haas, and I also really like Davydenko, because of his flawless technique (even though some find his game extra boring). It's a matter of taste, just like everything else...

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Anyone who doesn't understand Fed's pain at the time is rather heartless I'm afraid
I understand it. Fed got so wrapped up in winning and all the pressure that it overwhelmed him when it didn't happen. There are things in life to cry about. Losing a tennis match shouldn't be one of those things.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:08 PM
I though Agassi's game was prettier than Nadal's. I also think Agaasi had more natural talent than Nadal. I really liked Agassi's return of serve but his game wasn't appealing to me very much. More than Nadal's sure, but not by much. I like the all-around guys - Federer, Gasquet, Murray, Haas, and I also really like Davydenko, because of his flawless technique (even though some find his game extra boring). It's a matter of taste, just like everything else...

okay, I was just wondering because I like both fed and agassi a lot, but one of the reasons I don't like nadal as much is because I find his game boring, so I felt like a hypocrite liking agassi.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:09 PM
I understand it. Fed got so wrapped up in winning and all the pressure that it overwhelmed him when it didn't happen. There are things in life to cry about. Losing a tennis match shouldn't be one of those things.

You talk about it as if this was a first round match in a Challenger tourney. Fed cried because the crowd cheered for him even after the loss. They did not give up on him, thus he got emotional.

allcourter2008
02-21-2009, 01:10 PM
I understand it. Fed got so wrapped up in winning and all the pressure that it overwhelmed him when it didn't happen. There are things in life to cry about. Losing a tennis match shouldn't be one of those things.
Too bad then that Federer (Wimby 08, AO 09) and Nadal (Wimby 07) are such wussies...

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:12 PM
okay, I was just wondering because I like both fed and agassi a lot, but one of the reasons I don't like nadal as much is because I find his game boring, so I felt like a hypocrite liking agassi.

No need to feel like a hypocrite. The fact Nadal and Agassi have some similar qualities doesn't make them the same players. Verdascco has a game somewhat similar to Nadal's and I enjoy his matches a bit more than I do Nadal's.

TheOneAndOnly
02-21-2009, 01:12 PM
But What I'm Trying To Say Here Is This:

The Way Nadal Plays Gives Viewers Like Us This Sort Of Ouch, Grunt, Knee-injury Here And There, Ankle Pain Over Here, More Grunts, Pumps, Super-western Grip Topspin........... And This Sort Of Game At Least In The Past Only Gave Us The Likes Of Tomas Muster, Or Maybe Even Michael Chang (the So-called Grinders Of Tennis), And These Grinders Aren't Normally Considered The B.o.a.t (best Of All Time)........

..... So Along Comes A Dude Named Nadal Who Also Grinds... In Fact, He's The King Of Clay.... But Being The King Of Clay Does Not Get Immediate Respect As The B.o.a.t. Or A True Gs Champion.....


But After All This Fist-pumping After Every Point, The Grunting, The Knee-tapes And All....... Nadal Pulls Through.

This Sort Of Skin-of-your-teeth Victories May Make It Hard For Many To Accept Rafael Nadal As The Victor Over Roger Federer, Because, Federer Would Win Matches Quite Easily It Seems.

I Don't Know If I Would Say Federer Is A Tennis Artist More So Than His Curren Competition Having Been Less Than Par Vis-a-vis The Likes Of The Agassi-sampras Era.

From A Crude Atp Perspective, To Those Naysayers And To Those Who Cling To Federer Like Some Sort Of Dreamy-minded Wishful Thinkers, Hoping, And Hoping, And Hoping, That Federer Will Come Back To #1..........

2008 French Open = Winner Nadal
2008 Wimbledon = Winner Nadal
2009 Australian Open = Winner Nadal
2009 Us Open = _____________ (nadal?)
2009 French Open = ___________ (nadal?)
2009 Wimbledon = _________ (nadal?)


What More Can A Guy Do To Convince The Naysayers And The Federer-cling-ons?

I Don't Know.

tahiti
02-21-2009, 01:13 PM
I think you miss the point. He lost the singles gold medal, wimbie, lost hopelessly in the French, and then Oz. He also played a foul 5th set. That's just the tennis.

Match point he got angry with the crowd for calling out during play and then when he went up to speak they only loved him.
Must have made him feel bad.

Finally, his coach who died in a car crash in SA in 2005 (I believe) lived in Melbourne. I think the amount of loss just accumulated. Federer has too much depth to cry over losing alone.

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:15 PM
But What I'm Trying To Say Here Is This:

The Way Nadal Plays Gives Viewers Like Us This Sort Of Ouch, Grunt, Knee-injury Here And There, Ankle Pain Over Here, More Grunts, Pumps, Super-western Grip Topspin........... And This Sort Of Game At Least In The Past Only Gave Us The Likes Of Tomas Muster, Or Maybe Even Michael Chang (the So-called Grinders Of Tennis), And These Grinders Aren't Normally Considered The B.o.a.t (best Of All Time)........

..... So Along Comes A Dude Named Nadal Who Also Grinds... In Fact, He's The King Of Clay.... But Being The King Of Clay Does Not Get Immediate Respect As The B.o.a.t. Or A True Gs Champion.....


But After All This Fist-pumping After Every Point, The Grunting, The Knee-tapes And All....... Nadal Pulls Through.

This Sort Of Skin-of-your-teeth Victories May Make It Hard For Many To Accept Rafael Nadal As The Victor Over Roger Federer, Because, Federer Would Win Matches Quite Easily It Seems.

I Don't Know If I Would Say Federer Is A Tennis Artist More So Than His Curren Competition Having Been Less Than Par Vis-a-vis The Likes Of The Agassi-sampras Era.

From A Crude Atp Perspective, To Those Naysayers And To Those Who Cling To Federer Like Some Sort Of Dreamy-minded Wishful Thinkers, Hoping, And Hoping, And Hoping, That Federer Will Come Back To #1..........

2008 French Open = Winner Nadal
2008 Wimbledon = Winner Nadal
2009 Australian Open = Winner Nadal
2009 Us Open = _____________ (nadal?)
2009 French Open = ___________ (nadal?)
2009 Wimbledon = _________ (nadal?)


What More Can A Guy Do To Convince The Naysayers And The Federer-cling-ons?

I Don't Know.

B.o.a.t? hahaha :)

Why all the caps?

Fiercer
02-21-2009, 01:29 PM
I understand it. Fed got so wrapped up in winning and all the pressure that it overwhelmed him when it didn't happen. There are things in life to cry about. Losing a tennis match shouldn't be one of those things.

You really don't understand at all do you? Betlittle Federer, fine. I don't care much about that. However, who are you to tell what things there is to cry over in life? Your life may not revolve around tennis, but for players like Federer and Nadal, it's their career, their life. Somthing they spent years and years doing! If they can't cry about that, then what can they cry over?
In short, I didn't think you would go as far as lowering the value of tennis in order to insult Federer.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 01:34 PM
You really don't understand at all do you? Betlittle Federer, fine. I don't care much about that. However, who are you to tell what things there is to cry over in life? Your life may not revolve around tennis, but for players like Federer and Nadal, it's their career, their life. Somthing they spent years and years doing! If they can't cry about that, then what can they cry over?
In short, I didn't think you would go as far as lowering the value of tennis in order to insult Federer.
Things to cry over.
- Death
- Struggling to make ends meet with low pay.
- Depression (brain imbalance)
- Some other personal things that are better left not talked about.
Tennis is for fun. Not something to live or die over. Yes Nadal did cry after Wimbledon but didn't do it publicly. He gave Fed his moment though. Fed took away Nadal's moment.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 01:37 PM
I think you miss the point. He lost the singles gold medal, wimbie, lost hopelessly in the French, and then Oz. He also played a foul 5th set. That's just the tennis.

Match point he got angry with the crowd for calling out during play and then when he went up to speak they only loved him.
Must have made him feel bad.

Finally, his coach who died in a car crash in SA in 2005 (I believe) lived in Melbourne. I think the amount of loss just accumulated. Federer has too much depth to cry over losing alone.
Really? I guess you didn't see him sob hysterically during the whole trophy ceremony in Basel in 2001, I could have sworn he was crying over losing alone! (Basel is not in Australia BTW)

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:38 PM
Things to cry over.
- Death
- Struggling to make ends meet with low pay.
- Depression (brain imbalance)
- Some other personal things that are better left not talked about.
Tennis is for fun. Not something to live or die over. Yes Nadal did cry after Wimbledon but didn't do it publicly. He gave Fed his moment though. Fed took away Nadal's moment.

Actually Fed did everything in its power not to take Nadal's moment. And tennis is for fun yes, for you and me maybe, but it's much more than than to the pros. They eat tennis, breath tennis, sleep tennis. It's their lives and it's what they do everyday. Federer cried because of the mix of this match, alongside the other losses and because the fans were still loving him despite "letting them down". The man cried, then he gave Nadal his fully deserved credit, and both went on with their lives - get over it.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:40 PM
Really? I guess you didn't see him sob hysterically during the whole trophy ceremony in Basel in 2001, I could have sworn he was crying over losing alone! (Basel is not in Australia BTW)

fed is very emotional by nature and at such young age, it wasn't a surprise to me that he was crying for losing a home tournament. He was a baby back then and I guess to some he still is now. I'll admit fed looked rather pathetic during that video. I think people are still shocked that fed gets emotional becuause he has been holding it for so long.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Actually Fed did everything in its power not to take Nadal's moment. And tennis is for fun yes, for you and me maybe, but it's much more than than to the pros. They eat tennis, breath tennis, sleep tennis. It's their lives and it's what they do everyday. Federer cried because of the mix of this match, alongside the other losses and because the fans were still loving him despite "letting them down". The man cried, then he gave Nadal his fully deserved credit, and both went on with their lives - get over it.

as much as I love federer, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I think for the most part fed does give credit to nadal, but his post match press conference indicated otherwise. Perhaps he didn't mean for it to be taken that way, but I think he could have given nadal a bit more credit during the press conference, whether he was right or not.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Actually Fed did everything in its power not to take Nadal's moment. And tennis is for fun yes, for you and me maybe, but it's much more than than to the pros. They eat tennis, breath tennis, sleep tennis. It's their lives and it's what they do everyday. Federer cried because of the mix of this match, alongside the other losses and because the fans were still loving him despite "letting them down". The man cried, then he gave Nadal his fully deserved credit, and both went on with their lives - get over it.
Fed said he practically gave Nadal that final set. Not really giving Nadal full credit imo. It's not just this one incident but Fed always seems to think he failed rather then feel like Nadal succeeded. 2 players decide the match. Not just him.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:44 PM
Fed said he practically gave Nadal that final set. Not really giving Nadal full credit imo. It's not just this one incident but Fed always seems to think he failed rather then feel like Nadal succeeded. 2 players decide the match. Not just him.

those were a wrong choice of words and not that this means anything, but even uncle toni said that during the 5th said nadal didn't raise his level, but fed's level dropped, although that doesn't mean fed just gave it away like that.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 01:44 PM
BTW did you see that interview for Spanish TV that Rafa gave right after the Djoko match at the Olympics. Nadal's voice started breaking with sobs and he repressed them right away? That was really moving!
If Rafa ever indulged in that self-pity party that Roger put on at AO, he would disappoint me beyond words. I don't believe it's likely though, Latin people have a sense of honor I'm not sure Anglo-Saxons can understand. (that post is for Nadal Freak)

P_Agony
02-21-2009, 01:49 PM
Fed said he practically gave Nadal that final set. Not really giving Nadal full credit imo. It's not just this one incident but Fed always seems to think he failed rather then feel like Nadal succeeded. 2 players decide the match. Not just him.

"I don't want to have the last word, this guy deserves it"

"Congratulations Rafa, you played incredible man"

If that's not giving credit, I don't know what is.

As far as saying he gave away the 5th set, well he did. He made something like 7 straight unforced errors at some point and was just completely out of foucs and in choking mode.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:50 PM
BTW did you see that interview for Spanish TV that Rafa gave right after the Djoko match at the Olympics. Nadal's voice started breaking with sobs and he repressed them right away? That was really moving!
If Rafa ever indulged in that self-pity party that Roger put on at AO, he would disappoint me beyond words. I don't believe it's likely though, Latin people have a sense of honor I'm not sure Anglo-Saxons can understand.

wow. I'm not even sure what to make of that comment, but whatever.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 01:57 PM
fed is very emotional by nature and at such young age, it wasn't a surprise to me that he was crying for losing a home tournament. He was a baby back then and I guess to some he still is now. I'll admit fed looked rather pathetic during that video. I think people are still shocked that fed gets emotional becuause he has been holding it for so long.
I'm all in favor of being emotional (I'm very emotional myself and cry easily). A trophy ceremony is just an official time which is part of a sportsman job and to me that's one of the moments when you HAVE TO control yourself, it's a question of dignity and duty and honor. When Fed was on the verge of tears at W when interviewed by McEnroe, I found it very understandable and I don't think anyone said anything negative about it then but I was truly shocked and irritated by the Basel and the AO display, I felt like going to him and shaking him and telling him : you can't indulge in stuff like that, it makes you look bad, you have to fight it, conjure up your inner strength, show people you're a man, not a cry-baby... Oh well sorry if I'm getting carried away here :???:

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 01:59 PM
I'm all in favor of being emotional (I'm very emotional myself and cry easily). A trophy ceremony is just an official time which is part of a sportsman job and to me that's one of the moments when you HAVE TO control yourself, it's a question of dignity and duty and honor. When Fed was on the verge of tears at W when interviewed by McEnroe, I found it very understandable and I don't think anyone said anything negative about it then but I was truly shocked and irritated by the Basel and the AO display, I felt like going to him and shaking him and telling him : you can't indulge in stuff like that, it makes you look bad, you have to fight it, conjure up your inner strength, show people you're a man, not a cry-baby... Oh well sorry if I'm getting carried away here :???:

I agree and understand, but the last sentence from post of above just rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed very derogatory and I don't even know what to make out of it.

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 01:59 PM
wow. I'm not even sure what to make of that comment, but whatever.
I mean I can't imagine a Spanish man breaking down in public like that but it's probably a cliche, never mind.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 02:01 PM
I mean I can't imagine a Spanish man breaking down in public like that but it's probably a cliche, never mind.

I wouldn't think any less of nadal if he broke down, but I still think that statement was derogatory, especially towards anglosaxons, atleast that is how it looked. Are you trying to say that federer does not have a sense of honor?

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 02:14 PM
I wouldn't think any less of nadal if he broke down, but I still think that statement was derogatory, especially towards anglosaxons, atleast that is how it looked. Are you trying to say that federer does not have a sense of honor?
Well not a sense of honor as I define it for myself (not to lose face in front of an opponent: you know chivalry kind of honor) but you're right it's a culture based cliche and I apologize for it. I didn't mean it as an insult either to the A-S, just as indicating a cultural difference.

zagor
02-21-2009, 02:19 PM
Things to cry over.
- Death
- Struggling to make ends meet with low pay.
- Depression (brain imbalance)
- Some other personal things that are better left not talked about.
Tennis is for fun. Not something to live or die over. Yes Nadal did cry after Wimbledon but didn't do it publicly. He gave Fed his moment though. Fed took away Nadal's moment.

Have to agree with this,I personally don't mind the fact that Fed cried(I wouldn't mind it from any player),tennis is just an entertainment for me but it's life and career for those guys so I understand but he should have kept it together and cry afterwards,Nadal won his first HC slam,he should have been allowed his moment of glory.

as much as I love federer, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I think for the most part fed does give credit to nadal, but his post match press conference indicated otherwise. Perhaps he didn't mean for it to be taken that way, but I think he could have given nadal a bit more credit during the press conference, whether he was right or not.

Agree with this as well.

dascud
02-21-2009, 02:34 PM
I think pretty much everything that needs to said on the Fed-Rafa subject has been already said a thousand times over.
I like both Rafa and Fed and root for Fed over everyone else except when he is playing Rafa :-). Fed's tennis is undoubtedly genius and when I used to watch his matches between 2004-2007 in every match he used to hit a couple of shots that made you jump up and think that no one could ever do that. But his matches got a little predictable with him winning everything. Its almost like watching a taped match when you know who is going to win and takes away some of the edge of watching a tennis match. The Rafa-Fed rivalrly IMO was one of the best things to happen to tennis. The results are not a foregone conclusion anymore.

I agree that Feds game is more aesthetic but posters keep mentioning that Fed is more talented than Rafa. I dont agree to that at all. Fed pretty much knows that Rafa is going to pepper his backhand and Rafa plays almost half court against Fed and still manages to hit those crazy angles. In the first set Oz open finals @ 4-2, 15-30 fed serving, rafa is not even in the frame when fed hits the volley, yet he somehow manages to get his racquet and scoops the ball for a winner. Next point on a dead run he hits a crosscourt backhand for a winner from a crazy position. If that is not talent I dunno what is.
Similar to Fed from 2004-2007 in every Rafa match I find at least one or two points that make me jump from the couch in amazement.
But overall in the longer run if you look at what Fed has achieved in terms of 19 consecutive GSLAM Semifinals that is a testimony to his skill and fitness. Rafa still has some miles to go before he can be considered at the same rarified level as Fed. Meanwhile, I just find it great to sit back and watch how it unfolds for Rafa.

Like someone posted Fed-Rafa rivalry is like a religion. You are never going to convince the other camp.

TheOneAndOnly
02-21-2009, 02:43 PM
That's enough guys.

Enough excuses and explanations for --what it looked like -- Federer's disrespect to Nadal, an air of unbecoming conceit.

Sure, we can go on forever.

But if Federer really looks like he doesn't have to give credit to anyone whenever Federer loses.......... maybe it just that: That Federer doesn't want to give anyone credit but himself.

But we don't want to insult people, even Federer.

Many times, what it seems to be....... may be just that.

TheOneAndOnly
02-21-2009, 02:44 PM
The Way Nadal Plays Gives Viewers Like Us This Sort Of Ouch, Grunt, Knee-injury Here And There, Ankle Pain Over Here, More Grunts, Pumps, Super-western Grip Topspin........... And This Sort Of Game At Least In The Past Only Gave Us The Likes Of Tomas Muster, Or Maybe Even Michael Chang (the So-called Grinders Of Tennis), And These Grinders Aren't Normally Considered The B.o.a.t (best Of All Time)........

..... So Along Comes A Dude Named Nadal Who Also Grinds... In Fact, He's The King Of Clay.... But Being The King Of Clay Does Not Get Immediate Respect As The B.o.a.t. Or A True Gs Champion.....


But After All This Fist-pumping After Every Point, The Grunting, The Knee-tapes And All....... Nadal Pulls Through.

This Sort Of Skin-of-your-teeth Victories May Make It Hard For Many To Accept Rafael Nadal As The Victor Over Roger Federer, Because, Federer Would Win Matches Quite Easily It Seems.

I Don't Know If I Would Say Federer Is A Tennis Artist More So Than His Curren Competition Having Been Less Than Par Vis-a-vis The Likes Of The Agassi-sampras Era.

From A Crude Atp Perspective, To Those Naysayers And To Those Who Cling To Federer Like Some Sort Of Dreamy-minded Wishful Thinkers, Hoping, And Hoping, And Hoping, That Federer Will Come Back To #1..........

2008 French Open = Winner Nadal
2008 Wimbledon = Winner Nadal
2009 Australian Open = Winner Nadal
2009 Us Open = _____________ (nadal?)
2009 French Open = ___________ (nadal?)
2009 Wimbledon = _________ (nadal?)


What More Can A Guy Do To Convince The Naysayers And The Federer-cling-ons?

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 02:48 PM
The Way Nadal Plays Gives Viewers Like Us This Sort Of Ouch, Grunt, Knee-injury Here And There, Ankle Pain Over Here, More Grunts, Pumps, Super-western Grip Topspin........... And This Sort Of Game At Least In The Past Only Gave Us The Likes Of Tomas Muster, Or Maybe Even Michael Chang (the So-called Grinders Of Tennis), And These Grinders Aren't Normally Considered The B.o.a.t (best Of All Time)........

..... So Along Comes A Dude Named Nadal Who Also Grinds... In Fact, He's The King Of Clay.... But Being The King Of Clay Does Not Get Immediate Respect As The B.o.a.t. Or A True Gs Champion.....


But After All This Fist-pumping After Every Point, The Grunting, The Knee-tapes And All....... Nadal Pulls Through.

This Sort Of Skin-of-your-teeth Victories May Make It Hard For Many To Accept Rafael Nadal As The Victor Over Roger Federer, Because, Federer Would Win Matches Quite Easily It Seems.

I Don't Know If I Would Say Federer Is A Tennis Artist More So Than His Curren Competition Having Been Less Than Par Vis-a-vis The Likes Of The Agassi-sampras Era.

From A Crude Atp Perspective, To Those Naysayers And To Those Who Cling To Federer Like Some Sort Of Dreamy-minded Wishful Thinkers, Hoping, And Hoping, And Hoping, That Federer Will Come Back To #1..........

2008 French Open = Winner Nadal
2008 Wimbledon = Winner Nadal
2009 Australian Open = Winner Nadal
2009 Us Open = _____________ (nadal?)
2009 French Open = ___________ (nadal?)
2009 Wimbledon = _________ (nadal?)


What More Can A Guy Do To Convince The Naysayers And The Federer-cling-ons?

didn't you already post this?

TheTruth
02-21-2009, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by DoubleDeuce
Firstly, he's the number one as defined by ATP guidelines. Other than that anyone can choose their own number one.

Number one does not mean absolute better. In this regard, I am going to agree with Toni when he recently said Federer is a better player. Sure he knows what he's talking about.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.

I have no idea where NadalFreak found this post as it is not on this thread.

For me personally, Federer is the number one and always will be, simply because what he did for me no other player ever did.


double deuce, you have finally articulated the basis of the Nadal /Federer message board rivalry. It is not based on logic, but it is simply based on subjective feeling for one or the other player.
Like religion, you have no hope of convincing the other side.

Given that, some like Federer, some like Nadal. It's all in the mind, and neither side can be convinced of the other's point of view.

SO..forget all this Federer.Nadal stuff. You like tomatoes, I like tomahtoes. Period...never to be resolved....NEVER NEVER NEVER .


Personally, I have never given up on Safin, and no one can convince me otherwise. It's all in my mind. like Federer or Nadal is to others.


Cheers............

Pound Cat, you are awesome. Your summation says it all. We all like who we like, and will defend that right to the end. Most of what we like and dislike is subjective, and can never be proven. Loved the part about liking Safin and still liking him regardless of results, that's how I feel about Haas. I will never give up on him in my heart. The only thing that would be nice is if we all accepted our differences and weren't offended that others don't see things as we do.

TheTruth
02-21-2009, 03:27 PM
most people on here recycle the comments made by commentators. so, if a commentator says "federer glides on the court with undeniable elegance", the next day, you'll find 9 threads on Federer's elegance, and how he glides on the court. commentators have described federer as a "mathematical genius" because of how he uses the angles of the court ( i must be einstien squared, then). people have described him as a ballet dancer because his movement on court is supposedly so...um...ballet like.

nadal's game is described as brute force. jockish, no brain, not elegant, not artistic, etc. and i find that ridiculously disconcerting. i find nothing "artistic" or "genius" in federer's game.

people place so much emphasis on elegance (whatever the hell that means) and its necessity in being a number 1. if you aren't elegant, you aren't a real number 1. what a load of crap.

I'm a Sampras fan, so i don't really have a bias between nadal and federer. but, if federer's Monet, than nadal is Cezanne. If Federer's ballet, than Nadal is hip hop. If Federer's a mathematical genius ( rrrrright), Nadal is a mad scientist of the highest order. If federer's "i have my own logo and i wear a gold and white purse to wimbledon center court", nadal is "i kicked your *** in French, Wimbledon, and Australian Open, you pansy mofo."

I totally agree with your assessment. For the most part I never hear anyone describe Federer's game with original terms. It's always what some commentators have said. I find that a bit disconcerting. That people can see Nadal's game and call it "boring" is even more confusing. As a former Sampras fan I am also appalled that at the time the media labeled it as boring vs. Agassi's game. Who in their right mind thought Pete was only a server? Pete glided across the court and was always where he needed to be to win the point. The tennis was masterful...but, the commentators didn't acknowledge it many fans followed suit.

Whatever Nadal is, it's fine by me, because I have never seen a player of his magnitude in my life.

BorisBeckerFan
02-21-2009, 03:44 PM
Weather or not one agrees with the point system is one thing but it is fair in
the sense that it is applied in the same way to every player. Every player who
has ever been number one under the point ranking system no matter how
briefly, has deserved to be number one. I prefer Fed over Nadal and will
continue to hope he wins more slams and becomes number one again but I
also choose to give credit where credit is do and Nadal is number one. Even
if he himslef doesn't admit it. He has obviously been very well trained in what to say and I actually believe he means it when he says that. I wish Federer
had a team around him like Nadal has. Any one who thinks any number 1 isn't
a serious number 1 isn't serious about tennis. You are not just underminding
the hard work that the individual player has put in but you are in the process
knowingly or unknowingly underminding the position of being number one and
in turn uderminding anyone who has ever been number one.

Andyk028
02-21-2009, 06:52 PM
Nadal is the legit best player in the world right now. You cant argue against that. Hes won the 3 of the last 4 slams. I think as the next few years unravel he will have a more difficult time keeping that number 1 spot and winning the slams as Roger did 04-07. It came so easy to Roger. While Nadal has to work for what he has. Fed could almost half-arse at alot of the slams he played. He won a few slams there where you werent getting the best out of Fed. There wasnt a player like Nadal who could push him to the limit. Hewitt and Roddick. But neither were the calibor of Nadal. People will say Roger's best days are behind him. But if he had to deal with a 22 year old Nadal who has primed back in 04-06 the results would have been the same as they are now with Nadal taking most of the matches from clay to HC to grass and Fed may only be sitting half the slams he has now. MAYBE LESS

very good analysis..bravo.

TheOneAndOnly
02-21-2009, 08:37 PM
Nadal, as he stays on the #1 throne for some time, may begin an aura to the likes of Fed, Borg, Sampras, and the like.

With more stamina of sustaining #1, Nadal may start breaking records we never even imagined.

I think, in my opinion, a lot of this may have to do with Nadal's attitude and demeanor as he increases in popularity and acceptance by the public as the long-term #1

tahiti
02-21-2009, 11:50 PM
Nice comments everyone. I agree with most of them except Veronique and NadalFreak.

If Fed cried in Basel in 2001 it's a long time ago. He was what 19 or 20? Who of us had pressures of personal failure exposed before the public eye and tv at that age and knows we wouldn't cry ourself? Crying has got nothing to do being a man or not, it's about being human and to someone of such stature and a multi millionaire who can still show emotion is a definite plus point in my book. Maybe Fed is emotional, in my opinion he bottles things up which can lead to an overflow. Who cares?

Secondly. The very fact that the ceremony meant so much to Federer actually GAVE RAFA more positive publicity that anything else. People who didn't used to like Rafa, now do, because of the sportsmanship he displayed. He was like big brother and it was very touching.

It's true that Fed is not complimentary of Rafa in interviews . I don't agree with it, but I think in part it has something to do with the Press and their never ending questions. Plus as I mentioned somewhere earlier, one loss and the press talk of the demise of Fed. He's just defensive.

But that ceremony elevated Rafa to a new level in the eyes of the world. And I am pretty sure that % wise, no one thinks any less of Roger.

tahiti
02-21-2009, 11:53 PM
oops forgot to mention:

If anyone has humour on this earth, it's the Anglo-saxons :) Not that they hold any master dominance over it, but have you read Kiss, Bow or Shake hands? How do busy in 60 countries? You should. Cultural analysis which is based on years of reserach and very accurate. Worth reading.

Ronny
02-21-2009, 11:54 PM
But that ceremony elevated Rafa to a new level in the eyes of the world. And I am pretty sure that % wise, no one thinks any less of Roger.

I do, so do many others.

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 12:01 AM
The reason why most people don't like Nadal's style of play is because he's turned a beautiful game into an ugly abomination. His strokes look awkward and unnatural. He picks his butt before every point. People complain about Sharapova's shrieking but Nadal is just as bad, if not worse, with his incessant loud obnoxious grunting, which he probably does to intimidate his opponents. Why can't he just STFU???

Although Borg played a similar style (but with more fluid and beautiful strokes), people loved him because you never heard a peep out of him when he hit the ball.

Ronny
02-22-2009, 12:02 AM
BP needs a tissue? Just because he doesn't play like your hero doesn't mean its ugly. And even so, hes doing what is needed to win. Others have tried to beat Federer and failed with their styles, Nadal has stepped up and mixed it up to win. It is now 2009, not 1989. Times change and things change. Get over it. If you look at most people today, they all have an 'abomination' of a game according to you. Also, grunting is the air coming out of your mouth when you hit. Nadal's balls also take a lot of effort to hit. People like Gonzo also grunt, sometiemes even on slices. Some people grunt, others don't. Its all a personal thing. Nadal also has OCD, he has a routine and does it every point. Hes won 6 GS at 22 yrs old, so who the hell are you to complain?

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 12:10 AM
BP needs a tissue? Just because he doesn't play like your hero doesn't mean its ugly. And even so, hes doing what is needed to win. Others have tried to beat Federer and failed with their styles, Nadal has stepped up and mixed it up to win. It is now 2009, not 1989. Times change and things change. Get over it.
Um...yes it does. There's no one on the planet who thinks that Nadal's game is more beautiful than Federer's.

Brad Gilbert should re-publish his book "Winning Ugly" with Nadal's picture on the cover. He kisses Nadal's butt anyway, and we all know why. It's because Nadal is the epitome of "winning ugly". And nobody liked Gilbert's game very much either when he was on the tour.

Ronny
02-22-2009, 12:12 AM
Again...they just did what was needed to win. And I think that Nadal's game is more 'beautiful' than Feds. Thats one person.

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 12:16 AM
Also, grunting is the air coming out of your mouth when you hit. Nadal's balls also take a lot of effort to hit. People like Gonzo also grunt, sometiemes even on slices. Some people grunt, others don't. Its all a personal thing.
Um.....Federer, Blake, Sampras, Lendl, etc. don't hit the ball hard? Yet they don't grunt.

Nadal uses a lightweight feather of a racquet compared to the 14 oz. racquets that Lendl, Sampras, Borg, etc. used so it took them much more effort to hit the ball, yet none of them felt the need to have to grunt when they hit the ball. Have you ever tried playing a 5 set match with a 14 + oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquet? No? Then you have no idea what "effort" means when it comes to hitting a tennis ball. :-?

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 12:21 AM
Again...they just did what was needed to win. And I think that Nadal's game is more 'beautiful' than Feds. Thats one person.
Yet, Federer calls Nadal's game "weird". Has he or any other pro on the tour called any other player's game "weird"? Nope.

tahiti
02-22-2009, 12:31 AM
I don't like talking bad about Federer but if you want to look at the glass as half empty I can do the same with Fed.

In between points, Fed's **** like flicking of his hair. Those backhand wild shots off to the middle of no where. No control whatsover. Federer's playing has also become predictable. And of course he find's Rafa's play "weird" > He just can't fathom it out :)

tahiti
02-22-2009, 12:33 AM
And yeah Nadal grunts "sometimes" not always. It's about the intensity of the point.

Come off it guys. How can break points does Rafa fight off, with sheer mental willpower, determination and belief. Federer is nowhere near that. He doesn't know how, he never had to come up with anything brilliant because he was already so good. And then along Rafa who spoilt it all and showed the gaps in his game.

tahiti
02-22-2009, 12:37 AM
And I have to add. Rafa fought off a very in form on fire Verdasco in a marathon match and then did the same in the final. The guy's fitness is the best on the tennis circuit. No one can hold out like NAdal in 5 setters. Federer got lazy, thinking his pretty style would solve everything. Well it didn't. At least not last year.

Ronny
02-22-2009, 12:56 AM
Yet, Federer calls Nadal's game "weird". Has he or any other pro on the tour called any other player's game "weird"? Nope.

'weird' doesn't mena not 'beautiful' just different

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 01:00 AM
'weird' doesn't mena not 'beautiful' just different
OK, has any pro ever called Nadal's game "beautiful", as almost all of them have about Federer's game?

mandy01
02-22-2009, 01:13 AM
Honestly I have nothing against against Rafa thought I am an ardent fan of Roger.I respect his accomplishments and he plays great tennis.But somehow I just cant relate to him.The way he plays-its just not my cup of tea.So I dont care how much he wins.I just cant be a fan of his.I'll always respect him but I can't like him even if I try.

tahiti
02-22-2009, 01:17 AM
OK, has any pro ever called Nadal's game "beautiful", as almost all of them have about Federer's game?

Yes they have while commentating. In fact, sometimes they're stunned by certain shots and amazed and are full of praise, next time I'll take minutes, ok?

Quite honestly, if my goal was to be no. 1 in the world, I wouldn't give a hoot as to whether my game is "beautiful" or not. I'd care about winning. If that's done mission accomplished.

BreakPoint
02-22-2009, 01:46 AM
Yes they have while commentating. In fact, sometimes they're stunned by certain shots and amazed and are full of praise, next time I'll take minutes, ok?

Quite honestly, if my goal was to be no. 1 in the world, I wouldn't give a hoot as to whether my game is "beautiful" or not. I'd care about winning. If that's done mission accomplished.
I'm referring to fellow pros., not TV commentators. And although they may think Nadal hits an "amazing shot" now and then, none of them calls Nadal's game "beautiful".

tahiti
02-22-2009, 02:50 AM
You forget that ex- pros often commentate on matches, especially grand slams. I doubt whether fellow pros give away all the goods in describing each other's games and honestly, how many men use the word "beautiful" to describe something?

Don't forget, Rafa is 22 and Roger 27. That's a 5 year lead. Lets talk in 5 years to see if someone has called Nadal's game "beautiful." I have no doubts. But actually, I would be happier if they referred to his game with more powerful, dynamic, manly words.

miyagi
02-22-2009, 03:58 AM
I don't think his #1'ness is questioned, but what is questioned is whether he is a contender for GOAT. Against the rest of the field, I'd say both Fed and Nadal deserve #1 right now because both are still very dominant. Its just that Nadal has the matchup advantage against Fed now which puts him in the leading spot (ie. Nadal beat Fed in the finals of 5 of his 6 slam wins, including the last 3 in a row that Nadal has won to put him at #1). I can accept that Nadal is the true #1 at the present.

This is a rediculous response? How can both be #1 Nadal won 3 times the number of tournaments Federer did last year?? So he is CLEARLY infront of Fed.

Nadal won quite a few tournaments where Fed didn't even get to the final so how does the match up even come into the equation??

Nadal doesn't need to worry about being the GOAT if he continues to win then he will be a contendor for it, but for now that should be the least of his worries.

tahiti
02-22-2009, 04:50 AM
Well said.

Before Tsonga starts his match I'd like to clarify this so called "arse picking" which is maybe why he gets a bad rap eh?

Firstly, the comments overall on the forum referring to this habit of Rafa are grossly over-exaggerated. If one compares, nose picking to arse picking. The general idea is that one searches and finds goods.

To pull your shorts down because you've got a lovely load of butt muscle which means your pants creep up, is a completely different habit to arse picking. Clearly those describing it as such know this habit. Me myself, I'm unaware it existed. Gross, just gross.

Viva Nadal and those butt muscles!

rafan
02-22-2009, 05:04 AM
Never mind about his grinding physical game. It it his incredible mental ability to never give up that puts him head and shoulders about rest. There have been many times when we have thought Rafa is out ( or some thought finished) and he is back there like a great star. We have seen some incredible unbeleivable shots that will be remembered for years - which he engineered to get him back in a set.

Purostaff
02-22-2009, 06:20 AM
It's because Safin will always be my #1 in my heart (strong no |-|omo)

TheOneAndOnly
02-22-2009, 11:40 AM
Safin is out because of his mental side of tennis. But with Nadal, he's 'in' because he's won GS's. But Nadal is still considered 'out' because he tends to grind his matches.

Grinding out matches does not get the same respect from the public as the #1 player as much as it may from those who win matches easily.

tahiti
02-22-2009, 11:11 PM
Well it's funny then that in the French open final last year that nadal didn't grind but just wiped Federer off the court.

And in the Wimbie finals and Oz final then, Federer didn't grind? Or in his long matches recently where he's also been pushed. Is that not grinding? Maybe I don't understand the word grind.

saram
02-22-2009, 11:14 PM
People are still clinging onto the sinking ship known as Roger Federer.

haha--that was good.

rubberduckies
02-23-2009, 12:05 AM
Well it's funny then that in the French open final last year that nadal didn't grind but just wiped Federer off the court.

And in the Wimbie finals and Oz final then, Federer didn't grind? Or in his long matches recently where he's also been pushed. Is that not grinding? Maybe I don't understand the word grind.

Grinding is trying to wear down your opponent, not going for winners but waiting for errors. The only exception to this definition is when Federer slices his backhand all day long and hits tremendous topspin with his forehand. That's not grinding. That's mathematical genius. That's a religious experience.

TheNatural
02-23-2009, 12:25 AM
It's because he's Roger Federer's overbearing daddy who controls Fed way too much.

TheOneAndOnly
02-23-2009, 11:12 AM
Grinding is trying to wear down your opponent, not going for winners but waiting for errors. The only exception to this definition is when Federer slices his backhand all day long and hits tremendous topspin with his forehand. That's not grinding. That's mathematical genius. That's a religious experience.

Religious experience? huh?

slice backhand and topspin forehand a religious exp.?

c'mon.

grinding is about hitting the ball with heavy topspin which does not equate to making flat-hitting winners like sampras.

grinding is michael chang; grinding is mats wilander; grinding is tomas muster; grinding is also andre agassi; grinding is just that: wearing another down, not intentionally, but by sheer-virtue of the fact that the player DOES NOT GO FOR winner after winner, but, for example, creates heavy topspin one after the other

tahiti
02-23-2009, 11:26 AM
Ok, so it's a "slice defence shot"

I wish people would keep up with the times. This "Federer as Religious" was the title of this news article in August 2006. It's now 2009. It's a pity people are so manipulated by the press :)

tahiti
02-23-2009, 11:28 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all I should have left the link.

futuratennis
02-23-2009, 09:02 PM
Yeah but who won Wimbledon and the Australian Open? Lol You can have imaginary friends as well. Whatever makes you feel better.

shutup, ur always bad mouthing federer, u never do anything else

GameSampras
02-23-2009, 09:03 PM
I didnt know Nads does get a bad wrap? Everyone around these parts are all over his you know what now

TheTruth
02-23-2009, 09:14 PM
Yet, Federer calls Nadal's game "weird". Has he or any other pro on the tour called any other player's game "weird"? Nope.

Federer is notorious for dogging out people's game. What's new about this?

mandy01
02-24-2009, 02:02 AM
Federer is notorious for dogging out people's game. What's new about this?Never heard Federer calling Nadal's game weird..but weird clearly implies different.And one cannot deny Nadal;s style is weird or to put it simply-different.Something that hasnt been seen before.

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 06:17 PM
Again...they just did what was needed to win. And I think that Nadal's game is more 'beautiful' than Feds. Thats one person.
I think they're both beautiful but I find Nadal's game more spectacular and more fun to watch.

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 06:22 PM
You forget that ex- pros often commentate on matches, especially grand slams. I doubt whether fellow pros give away all the goods in describing each other's games and honestly, how many men use the word "beautiful" to describe something?

Don't forget, Rafa is 22 and Roger 27. That's a 5 year lead. Lets talk in 5 years to see if someone has called Nadal's game "beautiful." I have no doubts. But actually, I would be happier if they referred to his game with more powerful, dynamic, manly words.
I agree, I particularly like "dynamic", after all tennis is all about movement.

Melissa
02-24-2009, 07:21 PM
That's my opinion. I think Nadal's game is a borefest. Don't try to convince me otherwise - I'm entitled to my opinion.

Lol. I agree 100%. It is so boring to watch Nadal rip a running forehand down the line that passes three feet outside the net post and hooks in for a clean winner.

It is also boring to watch him rip a running cross court back hand winner after his opponent thought he had just hit a winner of his own.

It is also boring to see Fed volley a ball he thinks is a winner only to stand flat footed watching Nadal's spectacular passing shot.

I don't see how people can be bored by Nadal's game. Nadal creates shots that are boring only if you become bored with your favorite player losing to him.

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 07:26 PM
Lol. I agree 100%. It is so boring to watch Nadal rip a running forehand down the line that passes three feet outside the net post and hooks in for a clean winner.

It is also boring to watch him rip a running cross court back hand winner after his opponent thought he had just hit a winner of his own.

It is also boring to see Fed volley a ball he thinks is a winner only to stand flat footed watching Nadal's spectacular passing shot.

I don't see how people can be bored by Nadal's game. Nadal creates shots that are boring only if you become bored with your favorite player losing to him.
Don't forget the angles that Nadal can find at times, so mesmerizing. The extreme topspin also entertains me because you often think the ball is going out and it seems to miraculously fall in at the last second!

THERAFA
02-24-2009, 07:56 PM
it will get easy for rafa nadal to be number one before it gets harder because rafa nadal is still improving each year so the gap will increase before it declines :mrgreen:

edmondsm
02-24-2009, 08:11 PM
it will get easy for rafa nadal to be number one before it gets harder because rafa nadal is still improving each year so the gap will increase before it declines :mrgreen:

His knees aren't improving every year. They're getting worse it seems, quite a bit worse if you ask me. Doesn't matter how much his game improves, if you can't run, then you ain't number one.

TheOneAndOnly
02-24-2009, 09:24 PM
something tells me the knee tape is more psychological. here's a thread - take a look at this new thread......